One of the key things that Lévi-Strauss investigates in the book (and, actually, throughout his career as an anthropologist) are the totem relationships of tribal peoples. For those not familiar with totemism, here's a brief survey:
- members of a totem-clan are determined by patri- or matri-lineal relationships
- members of a totem-clan revere a particular animal (or, in some instances, plant or natural) spirit -- as such, they do not eat (or disturb) that particular totem
- members of a totem-clan are forbidden from marrying inside of their totem and from marrying a rival totem-clan
- and, of course, there are systems of religious stories and ritual that are associated uniquely with each totem-clan
As I look at these totemic systems from tribal peoples, I'm reminded that... well... people are people. The human race, looked at clearly through the lens of history, hasn't really changed as much as our Postmodern world would like to believe. One of the most freeing realizations, actually, has been the fact that human thought has actually not "advanced" in the modern era, but has really simply consisted of the same elements in different forms. Now, instead of animal sacrifice, we appease the gods of commercialism through the sacrifice of abstract concepts, time and money. ... ... But I get ahead of myself.
The thing that I realized was this: Totemism still exists today. Rather than explaining it initially, I will show it:
Freud analyzed the psychological implications of totemism, and Lévi-Strauss looked at the anthropological (and mythological) implications -- I'm going to look at the sociological implications.
Like these two men, I am making one major assumption with this post: that is, that humans look at the world around them and divide it into logical groups. Then, humans will likewise divide themselves into logical groups. I want to make this assumption clear because I do not believe that such partisan division is a value of the Kingdom of God. This post will be making the assumption of an unredeemed humanity -- ie. a divided humanity. Totemism should not exist in a Christian community. The reason why I make this clear should be evident soon enough.
In The Noble Savage, Lévi-Strauss makes the claim that the "primitive" man is just as intellectual as the "civilized" man -- and that his systematic classification is just as (if not more) developed as the Western Europeans' Linnaean taxonomy. This type of classification, which echoes Adam naming the animals, or Solomon describing them, is actually a natural part of human psychology. The education psychologist Jean Piaget discussed at length the way that humans separate and organize things.
In totemism, a group takes those divisible elements and affiliates themselves with it. So, a tribe that is physiologically swift might be the Hare tribe; or a tribe that is renown for its medicine men might be the Owl tribe, or, better yet, the Herb tribe. Upon making that association, the tribe develops ritual and stories that connect them with their totem animal (or plant, &c.) and so forth... Part of this ritual also distinguishes and organizes how one tribe relates with other tribes. So, the Hare might be in an "enemy" relationship with the Owl (who eats hare) and the Panther, but they might be in a "friendly" relationship with the Carrot tribe. Or something like that.
As is true for all anthropology, it would seem logical to say that these types of relationships apply today. Take the school-yard for instance. In the public school (particularly in a small school -- -- in a larger school these groups become more fluid and dynamic), the jocks have a particular relationship with the cheerleaders and a different type of relationship with the preps and a different relationship with the nerds. And each of these "totemic tribes" have their own "totem" [ie. symbolic similarity -- though in the high school these are more abstract concepts than concrete] and their own "rites and rituals" [for example, weight-lifting, for the jocks].
Politics, in particular, create an interesting form of totemism. I got the idea from a section in The Noble Savage in which some French intellectuals were discussing the different between the Bonapartists and the Orleanists. And I realized, with almost disjointed horror, that the whole American political system is an oversimplified view of totemic relationships! The slow, steady elephant and the quick, bullheaded donkey ... How perfect!
There are certain rites and rituals that Democrats and Republicans have -- which is why when the Democrats talk about gun-control, the Republicans respond in rage; or why when the Republicans talk about bringing Creationism into schools, the Democrats shake their heads. Don't get me wrong, I'm not simplifying American politics into some sort of religious system -- -- there are reasons why their ideologies support or don't support certain things. But what I am saying is that the American political system has become a two-tribe totemic system, which refuses relationship with the other totem.
In fact, recently a new totem has emerged -- that is, the Tea Party -- and it shows some sort of relationship with the Elephant, but it bites at the Donkey's heel to make fall over (kinda like the tribe of Dan).
Why does any of this matter? So, our political system seems to reflect "primitive" systems of social organization -- why should I care? (And I hope you do care -- this is a long blog post!) My concern is a simple one: two (or even three) tribe rule is dangerous for a large civilization. It creates a dangerous homogeneity which is necessary for the success of our country -- particularly since we are talking about America. Because of the pressures created by the totemic tribes, it is impossible for a progressive to be pro-life, and it is impossible for a conservative to be for government regulation. This type of "mold-fitting" socialization is dangerous for any society. (This is why I said that totemic systems are not a part of the Kingdom of God -- because the people of God break such homogenizing boundaries. That being said, there are cliques and divisions within the Body of Christ that fall into tribalistic thinking.)
The development of the Snake tribe [the Tea Party], though I disagree with its purpose and onset, shows a need for some "elbow space" in American politics. But it also develops into a disparity of power as well, since the Snake was formed from members of the Elephant [the GOP]. I am not sure how (or if) a power-balance will develop, nor if some sort of loosening of tribal bounds might be discovered -- but I think both are important for the growth and success of our country. [Of course, this is said from a primarily secular position -- -- as a Christian, I say that there are other, more vital and moral and spiritual things, necessary for our country.]
Again, there's a danger in becoming initiated into one of these "tribes," because they influence many parts of their members' lives. A structural reorganization, or, ideally, a freedom from totemism, are important steps for us as Americans. But, unfortunately, that is an unlikely reality.
